25 November 2018 4:19 PM

For anyone who still has delusions about 'Tommy Robinson' - what you need to know.

Here are two messages for defenders of 'Tommy Robinson' ( do please check the origin of his stage name, explained in the article to which I link below) . One, you must choose between him and me. If you seriously imagine that a liking for what I say is compatible with the Thought of Yaxley Lennon, then you are utterly mistaken, and must have misunderstood everything I have ever said or written. . I loathe everything he stands for, and I am sure it is mutual. Please waste no time here trying to persuade me that I should have any time or sympathy for such a person. I would very much rather if you went away and never came back, than entertained the fantasy that I might be persuaded to endorse or defend him.

Secondly, for anyone who is not familiar with the truth about him, here is a very thoroughly-researched article which will make it impossible, if you are both intelligent and civilised, for you to continue to sympathise with him. I will leave you to work out which of these qualities you lack, if, after reading it, you still sympathise with him.

Comments

Am I confused?
Terrorists run riot throughout Europe and Britain, shooting, killing and bombing innocent members of the public. Their identities and threat is well known in the corridors of 'security' powers. They are listed as dangerous, radicalised Islamists - but are free to travel in and out of Europe - usually to join the conflicts in war zones.

Robinson is arrested and illegally thrown in the slammer by one of Her Majesty's kangaroo courts for an offence(s) that, for the average citizen, would barely warrant a hearing!

No, I'm not confused - but the security forces are doing their damnedest to see that I am!

>Q "..imprisoned for assault.. mortgage fraud."
>A "..years ago: served.. time.. [SPENT CONVICTIONS] moved on [AS NOTED BY ONE HONEST JUDGE].. nothing to do with politics.. mortgage.. WAS just.. excuse: ..elite WAS out to get him.. what about Peter Mandelson.. One rule for.. rich…

And EVERY child helped out by bank of mum and dad without declaring source, etc, etc

MORTGAGE "Fraud" is misrepresenting income, savings, outgoings, or debts to obtain higher mortgage which even you probably GUILTY of if ever had one!

Mandelson not even arrested, Robinson AND family had ALL affairs gone over with fine-tooth comb and that's ALL they could find!

>Q "..conviction for contempt? Shouldn’t.. have kept away from.. sensitive trial?"
>A “Sensitive”..? You’d love that wouldn’t you. Everyone looking.. other way; no one speaking out; just one big cover-up by the elite and the MSM. Funny, isn’t it? You only care about stopping Tommy, not about protecting white girls."

And thank YOU for beautifully demonstrating how much immigrant Pakistani Muslim NATIONWIDE SERIAL MASS CHILD KIDNAP TRAFFICKING RAPE TORTURE, possibly even MURDER, GANGS are not only STILL operating in the 21st Century but are STILL being distracted from and covered for, by "liberal" apologists like YOU STILL mislabelling them "Asian" "grooming" gangs, normalising their behaviour!

Thank YOU ALSO for beautifully demonstrating their behaviour DOESN'T REALLY offend YOU!!

No, I fully answered the point, you just didn't bother reading it properly.

Firstly, who says "exposed"?

Clearly this was originally done by one or two journalists and politicians who got into trouble for daring, and another "far-rightNaziFascistScum" who was prosecuted twice for "HATEspeech" for it.

What Robinson HAS done is continually and repeatedly expose, and, more importantly, kept in the public eye, the fact that they are not "Asian Grooming Gangs", but something far, far, more vile and dangerous.

Something that people like you seem to want and need to cover up, normalise and excuse.

> "you proceed to make a stupid joke.."

No, it's people like you that make a stupid joke about it, I was exposing YOUR stupidity and evil.

So if, in a parallel universe where Hairism was treated as severely as Racism here and I pointed out "Hirsute Grooming Gangs" were actually specifically Ginger Child Rapists that would make it "appear" I was more offended by the fact that these men were red haired than anything else, would it?

It would appear you feel a deep need to continue distracting, defending, apologising for and normalising child rape and torture.

> "A former engineer at Luton Airport, he was sacked in 2004 after receiving a year's prison sentence for punching and kicking an off-duty policeman who intervened in a domestic dispute with his then-girlfriend Jenna Vowles, who he later married."

I think he, for once, well, for the umpteenth time, let his standards slip, no, the other Guy - Adams - and forgot to do any research.

The other version is that he received:

"a year's prison sentence for punching and kicking an off-duty policeman who intervened in a domestic dispute...…"

By rugby tackling Robinson and flooring him, while he was having a VERBAL dispute, before people, yet again, jump to the wrong conclusions, with his future wife!

@HM,
You ask, "who says Tommy Robinson was a football hooligan?" He himself has admitted it, numerous times. Also, the fact that he calls himself "Tommy Robinson" after a man he admires- a notorious Luton Town football thug in real life- kind've gives it away.

@Jeremy Bonnington Jagworth,
Thank you for beautifully demonstrating how much Muslim grooming gangs REALLY offend you. Instead of answering the point- namely that Robinson hasn't exposed a single one, but merely jumped on the bandwagon- you proceed to make a stupid joke about it, in a vain attempt at obfuscation. It might appear to a casual observer, that you were more offended by the fact that these men were Muslim than anything else.
It's a shame, because your point about the press breaking the rules is a fair one. I've noticed it happening, numerous times myself. That hardly justifies Robinson's behaviour, however.

These are unimportant. Citing these just made the article's typist look desperate to run a smear job.

The point is the 'facts' the article contains about Robinson are expressed in about 16 words out of about 2300.

If anyone looks at the facts themselves they might wonder why Robinson gets marked-out for *special* attention as a terrible person.

Especially given the politicians/celebrities/media-types (and even royalty) who have done the things he has done (or worse things) yet do not get marked out for *special* attention - or any sort of on-going moral condemnation at all.

My point on this thread has been, not that Robinson is a saint, but that the popular media has no moral bedrock of its own; those in it pick and choose their morals based on whatever happens to be the safe and smelly line at the time.

Nigel Farage was once a 'racist' because of his immigration views; now it's Robinson who's the 'racist' because of his views on Islam.

So Farage is now allowed to posture like a foot-stamping child and theatrically flounce out of UKIP - full of certainty that many will think he's making a genuinely principled move.

Was it last year that the significantly humourless person (and fake Christian) Tim Farron, dimpled his chin with moral-disapproval as he theatrically quit the Lib Dumbs after playing a wet ‘victim-card’?

Do these persons believe we cannot see through this garbage? It's not only politicians. Now journalists are posturing like fools, too.

Liz Jones publicly humiliated herself by claiming that she was a vegan who eats eggs, and that veganism should be a religion. In this she’s a bit like the vegetarians who eat fish, or the pacifists who like a bit of the old ultra-violence.

It wasn't that long ago Carrie Gracie was so upset with her BBC bosses over pay that she was forced, publicly and on principle, to announce she was going to continue working for them.

For some reason nobody laughed her into exile. Perhaps it was because the ‘pay-gap’ nonsense is another fashionable line to whine about?

I did a bit of a search through the SLPC and HNH's output about Robinson and, in particular about his American funding, and I would estimate that about 5% of the article might be based on their sources. I doubt it is much more than this and it is very unlikely to be as high as 10%. I would guess that perhaps up to another 40% may have come from online articles in the Guardian and other newspapers (or do journalists use paper archives?) and perhaps a very small part of this originated in these two organisations. I would then guess that Guy Adams did his own leg work on original documents when looking up Robinson's dodgy financial affairs which would account for the other half of the article.

HNH appears (Wikipedia) to have been very closely connected to Searchlight magazine. I know independent writer Alexander Baron has a very low opinion of Searchlight and clashed seriously with the late Gerry Gable. It is a very interesting story and worth looking up. My low opinion of Searchlight and HNH would be mainly based on this. A good proportion of what I knew about Robinson comes from Baron's five minute YT video entitled Tony Robinson: Hero or Idiot? The video is addressed to Robinson's American supporters and Baron says his antics outside the court were those of an idiot. He argues that while the American justice system is better than the British in some respects it is worse in its tolerance of trials being prejudiced. One of those American supporters would be journalist Colin Flaherty, whom I have mentioned twice on this weblog.

I cannot recall where I got my low opinion of SPLC but from what I have since read by and about them it has not changed. That Mr Adams relied on them to the extent he did can be legitimately criticized. On the other hand he acknowledges this and also their poor reputation does not necessarily mean their information here is incorrect.

It was an interesting exercise but in the end I got heartily sick of waiting for the various articles and websites to load on my computer. Perhaps if Mr Adams reads this he can let us know how he researched it.

And often the people who get caught up in these 'fights' are lying unconscious on the ground while those they are 'fighting' kick and steal from them.

Another way the media report these events (if they are reported at all, and then only locally) is to describe them as 'teenagers getting out of hand'.

While I take PH's point I would nevertheless be wary of any information provided by the Southern Poverty Law Centre or Hope Not Hate.

***PH writes: OK, about 0.00015 % of the information in the article is sourced to these bodies. Let's assume for the sake of argument it's not to be trusted. What about the remaining 99.00085% ? ****

By the way, the financial statements (October 2017) of the former show net assets of €44m in their 'operating fund' while their 'endowment fund' stands at €438m. They spent €29m on salaries alone and received €6.7m from anonymous donors. (All this information is freely available in the US.)

Colm J writes: "Since over 40% of the Republic of Ireland's population lives in the Greater Dublin area, I'm afraid the two statements are incompatible. In any case there are many Muslims in most of the cities and large towns of the Republic."

- This contributor is being obtuse. There is only one way of knowing how many Muslims live in Ireland and that is to count them. This happened during the last census in 2016 where there were 63,443 Muslims out of a total of 4,761,865 inhabitants in Ireland. I invite Colm J to calculate himself how much that is as a percentage of the population. But I can inform him that this is 1.33% of the population of Ireland regardless of where these Muslims live and how many of them live in Dublin.
Things can of course have changed between 2016 and the present. But even if the number of Muslims had doubled since 2016 (which is highly unlikely), that would still mean that there are only between 2 and 3% of Muslims in Ireland, a tiny minority compared to Christians, which was my original point.
And even if ALL the Muslims in Ireland lived in Dublin (population 1,173,179 including suburbs according to the 2016 census), they would still only represent about 5% of the population, which would still be a tiny minority compared to Christians.

'I read your earlier comment clarifying Robinson's 'brawling'. If this hasn't since been re-clarified then perhaps it resembles the way the US media routinely describes as 'fights' attacks on individuals by black mobs..'

Well, quite. Several comments back I did indeed point out that Robinson was actually attacked at Ascot, he wasn't just 'brawling'.

Henry L''Eplattenier:*** The contributor's statement that there are many Muslims in Dublin is not incompatible with my statement that Muslims represent only about 1% of the population of Ireland.***

Since over 40% of the Republic of Ireland's population lives in the Greater Dublin area, I'm afraid the two statements are incompatible. In any case there are many Muslims in most of the cities and large towns of the Republic.

> “The sheer gullibility of the far right never ceases to amaze me. Mr Yaxley-Lennon has never exposed a single “grooming gang”...- even risking a mistrial, merely to promote himself”

Posted by: Brian Warner | 25 November 2018 at 07:31 PM

---

So true, so true!

Yaxley-Lennon has never ever exposed even a single gang of Japanese Shinto Manicurists and Chinese Taoist Hairdressers for giving young girls unasked for makeovers.

Despite the fact that dozens of such "Asian Grooming Gangs" have been operating across the country in numerous of our towns and cities since the 80s and possibly even the 70s!

Mind you, that reminds me, didn't another “far-right” “extremist” (makes you wonder what the medias definitions are) try the same kind of publicity stunt way back at the start of the Millennium.

And get prosecuted himself for "HATEcrime" for daring to speak out about it.

Twice!

(Notice a pattern here?!)

I wonder what our defenders of free speech, justice, Peelian Policing, Magna Carta, and written Bill Of Rights, had to say about him at the time?

Oh, and as for risking mistrials, in which of the three relevant cases was there a mistrial?

Appeal based on Robinson's actions?

Even a hint of a defence team even considering as much as suggesting either?

Anyone?

No?!

People need to research the Levi Bellfield/Milly Dowler actual mistrial after actual highly prejudicial reporting, actually in direct contempt of specific instructions not to publish the prejudicial material, and actual dismissal of the jury and actual abandonment of the rest of the trial, and the defendant actually being let off the outstanding charges.

And what the reporters punishment was (subtle hint: the answer is “NONE”!).

Better still read up, in full, both sets of guidelines on contempt of court and reporting restrictions (note, not bans) and the report that led to them.

Posted by: John Aspinall | 26 November 2018 at 10:28 PM:
> "I read the article again and it’s still garbage. What of the weighty ‘facts’ which are supposed to make this piece so worthwhile?"
> "You have to get through almost 500 words before anything about Robinson’s moral character is offered, which is that Robinson ‘once likened Muslim babies to time-bombs’...…."

----

I tried long and hard to find this quote, to check the background and context.

I could only find two main stream media references to Robinson having made this allusion, albeit at different times, and neither giving any evidence to back the claim up.

However, I did find two "HATE Not Hope" fanatic type internet blog hit pieces on Robinson which proudly displayed screenshots of a Tweet, apparently by him, making the allusion, albeit again at different times.

Posted by: Michael Wood | 03 December 2018 at 04:29 PM:
> "They seem incapable of understanding that ‘tribalism’ is not just an ‘African/Asian’ phenomena, and that it is a universal basic flaw in the human psyche - in a similar vein to that in nature or that is bound to end in some form of conflict between differing tribes depending on the severity of their different cultures. The West conveniently labels and describes it as ‘civil unrest’ caused by ‘racialism’ and many other forms of prejudice and legislates to outlaw it."

----

And it's not just "that ‘tribalism’ is not just an ‘African/Asian’ phenomena".

Or "that it is a universal basic flaw in the human psyche - in a similar vein to that in nature".

All territorial animals, be they Asian, African, or English, will stake out, mark out, and defend their pack's, or even their own, territory, and drive out any interlopers, of their own family, never mind differing tribes, breeds, cultures, races, species, or anything else.

So it's hardly surprising that unfettered mass immigration "is bound to end in some form of conflict between differing tribes depending on the severity of their different cultures".

You just have to look at the friction between the Democrat and Republican cultures in the US.

Never mind "Anti"Fa punching "Nazis" in the face.

Or conservative and "liberal" cultures here.

Why, it can get to the stage where even those who insist they are on a far higher plane, a higher level of civilizational advancement, than the rest of us, will mark out their territory and drive out any from a culture that doesn't exactly match theirs in every way.

(I was going to include a quote to demonstrate that, but couldn't find one. Has this web page been edited?!)

John Aspinall "but all of them make me wonder why the popular media and popular commentators tip so much slime over Robinson."

I'd venture a guess at that one. It's because the media are virulently PC and their
go-to stance where anti Muslim sentiment is expressed, is condemnation of those who speak out. Their deeply rooted PC doesn't allow even any fair criticisms.

The wider point about Robinson is surely that his history of thuggish behaviour coupled with the sort of things he says, (aside from his criminal history) is that he is too much like the sort found in the BNP. Were he to get support, he and his friends could turn into something very unpleasant as we have seen in other times.

I read your earlier comment clarifying Robinson's 'brawling'. If this hasn't since been re-clarified then perhaps it resembles the way the US media routinely describes as 'fights' attacks on individuals by black mobs (as reported by journalist Colin Flaherty).

"The explanation for Mr Hitchen's distaste for Tommy Robinson is quite simple, class snobbery. This is the sub-text behind much of the hysteria. Working class radicalism is unacceptable but the same views expressed by for instance Mr Douglas Murray are not met with the same outrage."

Posted by: Clive Gibson | 03 December 2018 at 05:49 PM

So how do you explain away then the fact there are people like myself, who are working class, sharing the same distaste for people such as 'Tommy Robinson'?

A. Don’t punish him for being honest, then. Anyway, everyone makes mistakes. He’s grown up a lot since then.

Q. He was imprisoned for assault and mortgage fraud.

A. Yeah, but that was years ago: he’s served his time and moved on. And it was personal; nothing to do with politics. And that mortgage stuff was just an excuse: the elite was out to get him. I mean, what about Peter Mandelson, eh? One rule for the rich…

Q. I see, but what about starting the EDL? They were a sinister bunch.

A. More sneering liberal-elite prejudice. You just hate the white working-class. Tommy was defending his community. He knew what it was like out on the streets. He saw it with his own eyes. The extremists were taking over. He saw it first.

Q He was filmed threatening every Muslim in Britain.

A. Threatening them with what? With a protest, that’s all. Anyway, he apologised for that, so it’s exactly like it never happened, and we don’t need to talk about it.

Q. How about his conviction for contempt? Shouldn’t he have kept away from such a sensitive trial?

A. “Sensitive”, eh? You’d love that wouldn’t you. Everyone looking the other way; no one speaking out; just one big cover-up by the elite and the MSM. Funny, isn’t it? You only care about stopping Tommy, not about protecting white girls.

Q. But the trial was about protecting them. Robinson’s actions put that at risk.

A. That’s what the elite says, and what do they want? More immigration and sharia, that’s what. Tommy was out on the streets, telling the truth, like a real journalist.
You’re just stuck in the past, like the BBC. Tommy speaks for the working class.

Q. How can you be so sure of that? The working class has never chosen Tommy Robinson.

A. Rubbish! They love him; they must do: he’s one of them. If Tommy stood for election, everyone would vote for him. Everyone except the liberal-elite. So, you can just shut up. Go read the Guardian and eat your tofu. Tommy forever!

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.